Joe Horn - Page 7

TexasWSP · #1 07-06-2008, 01:56 PM

I thought that it has been established from the witness report that they ran at him, not away from him. I'm glad that he chose not to look at the situation as "not his problem". Good for him for giving sh*t.

You keep talking about clear and present dangers..........does that matter in the case of a fleeing assailant who is commanded by an officer to remain still, don't move, etc. etc.? From watching and reading about these kinds of situations pretty much all the time....I am fairly certain that a police officer is authorized to use that level of force. Also, I want to think that a cop doesn't assume a suspect to be unarmed.....ever.

DSTCHAOS · #2 07-06-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

I thought that it has been established from the witness report that they ran at him, not away from him.

You're right. My bad.

If he hadn't have walked his butt outside looking for a fight, they would've have done so.

I'm not saying that running to him (if that's true) was smart or justifiable on their part. Horn (or anyone else in his position) and the suspects' fault are two different issues, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

You keep talking about clear and present dangers..........does that matter in the case of a fleeing assailant who is commanded by an officer to remain still, don't move, etc. etc.?

Yes, if the fleeing alleged assailant poses no immediate threat to the officer or to others.

Por ejemplo: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec...tion/na-alito3

Similarly, in some states it is in violation of the law for home owners to shoot burglars before they enter their home (and before they pose a threat) or once they are exiting the home (and no longer pose a threat).

So laws in different states are what they are but the implications of the laws are much more interesting. The implications are what we're discussing now. So there's no need for people to keep reminding us of TX law and that the jury found that Horn did not violate the law. We get that, thanks.

jon1856 · #3 07-07-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not just yours.

Texas law has "spoken" but this discussion doesn't end there.

Texas law has not, in truth, spoken.
As the Grand Jury did not charge or indict him, his case never made it to trial.
And there is a rather old statement that a DA can indict even a plain old ham sandwich.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Thankfully Texas law agrees with my POV. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Either you think that Joe made the right decision to go outside and confront the thieves or you think that Joe Horn should have hidden in his house and let the crooks get away. I wouldn't have done what Joe Horn did but I admire him for having the courage to do it.

As above, a petite jury was never given all the information to make a decision on matter.
Courage to commit premeditated murder?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

1. I don't know what all of these abbreviations mean.

2. The report and eyewitness account by the police officer, if I read it correctly, states that the illegal Colombian criminals ran at him and then veered off as he shot them. Again, if two burglars run at me after robbing the house next door.....they are getting shot.

3. Who cares if he was "safe inside his house"? He protected his neighbor's home and took two pieces of trash off my Texas streets. Congratulations for not doing nothing.

Brother, to the very best of my knowledge, no one on this board was on the Grand Jury.
And Grand Juries do not hear all the information nor do they get all the sides involved. My fiancée was just on a Federal Grand Jury for over a year.
She still has yet to tell me what they did and to whom. All I know is that some of what they handled did make the news, some on the front pages.

And I do not know if they, the members of the GJ, knew while deliberating
the backgrounds of the two murdered suspects.

Being safe within his own house is, IIRC, part of the law.

And just how would this turn out if the two dead parties were drunk Fraternity Brothers who decided to do some prank on someone?
And yes, that is a rather good possibility if you give it some thought.

DSTCHAOS · #4 07-07-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856

Texas law has not, in truth, spoken.
As the Grand Jury did not charge or indite him, his case never made it to trial.
And there is a rather old statement that a DA can indite even a plain old ham sandwich.

Welp, we'll just wait and see then.

TexasWSP · #5 07-07-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You're right. My bad.

If he hadn't have walked his butt outside looking for a fight, they would've have done so.

I'm not saying that running to him (if that's true) was smart or justifiable on their part. Horn (or anyone else in his position) and the suspects' fault are two different issues, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, if the fleeing alleged assailant poses no immediate threat to the officer or to others.

Por ejemplo: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec...tion/na-alito3

Similarly, in some states it is in violation of the law for home owners to shoot burglars before they enter their home (and before they pose a threat) or once they are exiting the home (and no longer pose a threat).

So laws in different states are what they are but the implications of the laws are much more interesting. The implications are what we're discussing now. So there's no need for people to keep reminding us of TX law and that the jury found that Horn did not violate the law. We get that, thanks.

Gotcha. Thanks for the link.