Joe Horn

[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?